Though Ares I-X was a success, the cost and schedule situation has gotten to the point where I have to think it will be ditched in favor of Direct or not Shuttle C. Although you never really know, it is after all the incumbent "program of record" and lots of money and effort have been spent already, also there will probably be some kind of gap no matter what happens. It is telling that when George Diller announced the liftoff he said something about the launch being "for future rocket design" and didn't say that it was a test flight of the vehicle that would carry America's astronauts to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Logged

I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Shuttle extension plus continued work on Ares 1 is a "kick the can down the road scenario" that allows the Administration to avoid making a tough decision that annoys those being paid to develop Ares 1.

Sadly, for some, Ares 1 costs and schedule can be seen as a feature, not a bug.

Shuttle extension plus continued work on Ares 1 is a "kick the can down the road scenario" that allows the Administration to avoid making a tough decision that annoys those being paid to develop Ares 1.

Pursuing hot potato issues like health care and (next on the agenda) energy legislation, kicking the can down the road does not appear to be on the agenda for this administration. It's my personal opinion that a substantial decision on NASA's direction will be made... whether we space watchers like it or not remains to be seen.

I think the 4-seg SRB will retire with the Shuttle. Can't see NASA cancel RSRMV now. DM-2 is in work, aft segment was cast, forward segment cast begins today. 5-seg is the future.

I also think the same goes for the SSME - retired with the Shuttle. What Jeff Hanley said in the leaked email. What Dr. Douglas Stanley said Nov 2nd at the AIAA moderated debate in D.C. What some forum members here are saying.

I see no reason to reinvent the EELV as ULA can and will gladly sell you a 24T payload LV today.There just is not money to be building a more expensive version of something you can already buy.I'm sure or at least I hope the people in the congress and senate can see this too.This would not be the end of SDLV's. The side mount or Jupiter will likely get built to fill the need for large cargo and to keep the SRB supply chain employed.

I voted yes because I have no faith in government. I believe Ares I will survive because it has inertia; not because it is good and definitely not because it will help the space programme.

I believe that in 20 years time it will be looked back on as the single worst mistake that NASA has ever made. Without an improbable funding increase Ares I is worse than nothing -- it will maintain the standing army and suck up all the money. Ultimately I suspect the uninspiring nature of Ares I/ISS will conspire with the current budgetary realities to progressively shrink NASA's budget even further.

We may end up looking back on this as a golden age of cheap and frequent spaceflight... It's all so depressing

The budgetary, schedule and mission capability arguments are all strongly for cancellation and replacement with something either directly shuttle-derived or EELV-derived. However, there is a lot of political inertia behind Ares-I and combining it with a long shuttle extension and cancellation of HLV (use multiple EELV-heavies as CaLVs instead) seems to be the lowest-inertial change decision that still addresses the budgetary, scheduling and mission capability issues.

A lot depends on whether the President really wants a fight with the special interests in Congress over space policy so soon after this bruising fight over health-care and with another fight over AfPak policy looming very close on the horizon. Obama could easily view this as another chance to be seen as a reforming visionary. On the other hand, he could see it as picking an unnecessary fight when there are a lot more critical and important issues on which to spend his political capital.

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

A lot depends on whether the President really wants a fight with the special interests in Congress over space policy so soon after this bruising fight over health-care and with another fight over AfPak policy looming very close on the horizon. Obama could easily view this as another chance to be seen as a reforming visionary. On the other hand, he could see it as picking an unnecessary fight when there are a lot more critical and important issues on which to spend his political capital.

Very well said. It is worth any fighting? I don't think so. Is fighting by him really needed to change anything? I don't know.

In the end, I had to vote, "Don't know." Common sense tells me the answer should be, "No," because there are so many better choices, many of which could fly by the end of 2016, at the very latest. Piling money on SpaceX, Orbital, and a combine that works toward Orion-Lite on Atlas V *and* Delta IV should result in at least one HSF to LEO system by 2014-2015. SD-HLV (NSC) and Jupiter-130 (if not -246) could also be ready to go by 2016 at the latest (2014 at the soonest), in a "piling money on" scenario. But I think money piling is unlikely. And I suspect the effect of US politics works powerfully in favor of PoR as-is. So I guess my answer-in-detail is, "50:50."

I will add this. The current odds favor the Republicans taking control of the US House of Representatives (but not the US Senate) at the end of next year. That could change *whatever* decisions are made by the Obama administration. Spending bills originate in the House. The "house divided" aspects of US politics that have evolved over the past 20+ years are pushing us in the direction of, "all plans fail."

4) Gemini-like programme to create a rapid-development capsule to go on top of an Atlas, the ¨Orion Lite¨ which has been bantered about before.

As I said, two are right-out due to political needs. You may note I did not put DIRECT in there, because with DIRECT the long-pole is Orion, which will not be ready until 2014/2015, so even if we could crash-build DIRECTś J130, we would be left without a crew capsule for a period of time.

Logged

chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

By all rights, the answer should be "NO," and that's how I voted. Unfortunately, Ares is a rocket in search of a mission, as it doesn't appear it will be ready to go and make contributions to the ISS program much before we de-orbit the darn thing. I have always thought you should develop the rocket for the mission, or develop them concurrently, not come up with a mission for the rocket...that seems to be the ultimate "Cart Before the Horse" method.

Whether it lives or dies, I think it will be a protracted struggle. I had the privilege to hear Charlie Bolden speak Saturday night at the ASF Apollo 12 40th Aniversary Gala. He stressed the "tortoise and the hare," saying that the ultimate decision has not been made, but assuring everyone in attendance (including Neil Armstrong and a large contingent of Apollo & Shuttle astronauts) that while it might be a slow process, we would end up with "an exploration program all of us can be proud of." I know he's a man of his word, I just hope he can pull it off, regardless of what launch vehicle is ultimately selected...

Logged

"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

I just hope he can pull it off, regardless of what launch vehicle is ultimately selected...

Unfortunately, he is only the guy who is tasked with doing the job. The decisions are in other hands. If you excuse my tone, it is in the hands of people, some of whom think 'honour' is something that you do to checks.

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

I won't disagree with you there. And that raises the ultimate question which is "How much micromanagement will be inflicted by the President & Congress?" The options range from "Charlie, here's $5B per year for the next 10 years...get the most out of it you can" through "Whatever you do needs to be shuttle-derived to preserve the workforce" to "We favor Jupiter 241 over Jupiter 246." The most effective program would come from somewhere between the first 2 scenarios, but the most likely outcome will probably be between 2 & 3... Sorry if this wandered off-topic.

Logged

"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

Title: Pre-milestone A and early-phase systems engineering: a retrospective review and benefits for future Air Force systems acquisition

Author: National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Pre-Milestone A Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Future Air Force Systems AcquisitionPublisher: National Academies Press, 2008ISBN: 0309114756, 9780309114752Chapter 2: "Relationship between Systems Engineering and Program Outcome"

Based on past experience and historical trends, it is too late for Ares-1. Requirements are not stable because the SDR phase was not executed properly, PDR has not been passed due to late awareness of the TO issues which are adding significant design complexities to both vehicle and payload, insufficient performance and power margin is being carried in many subsystems, critical ground and flight testing is being cut to meet increasingly tight budget constraints and schedule is slipping farther and farther to the right. Furthermore, and most importantly, the larger exploration architecture this vehicle was supposed to support is now seen to be impractical, problematic and ill-advised.

I think the 4-seg SRB will retire with the Shuttle. Can't see NASA cancel RSRMV now. DM-2 is in work, aft segment was cast, forward segment cast begins today. 5-seg is the future.

I also think the same goes for the SSME - retired with the Shuttle. What Jeff Hanley said in the leaked email. What Dr. Douglas Stanley said Nov 2nd at the AIAA moderated debate in D.C. What some forum members here are saying.

voted no,but I see the 5 segment as a pay as you go project on the back burner for any future shuttle derived vehicle,do to development costs the 4 segment would live on for a while post shuttle .Not sure about the J2X or SSME as that depends on what the shuttle derived vehicle would be.on another post Chris and others might be saying the window is closing on ET tank production( restarting) so this would impact the side mount idea.if its a choice between Ares lite ( a long gap) and a all EELV universe then go with EELV and be done with it.But that perhaps would not fly politically so....................replace Ares 1 with EELV ( the gap)"pay as you" go on Ares lite cargoeAres lite becomes the human rated "fall back" vehicleso it would be a punt for future political/ commissions IE it would be a fly off between humans on Ares lite and EELV in the late 2020's when the heavy finally fly'sI see some politically logical flaws in my words above....................you engineer types are not going to be able to give Utah what they want, continued SRB production. really only shuttle extension would have done that with side mount maybe direct.The politicians brought this about by not funding you engineer types sooner with something other then Ares V.so I am feeling gloomy tonight sorry

Logged

I am a member of the side mount fanboy universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture fanboy universe.Anything else is budgetary hog washflexible path/HERRO

Ares-I has got no chance at all of surviving this process. CxP already accept this internally, though not publicly, yet. That unpleasant announcement is awaiting a time when it can be made less stressful by timing it with the pleasant announcement of what will be replacing it. Further, until a new direction is announced, work will still 'continue as normal', simply because you don't want everyone just sitting around playing solitaire all day.

Ares-V might cling-on for a few more years, but the budget realities make it impossible for it to ever be finished or become operational. It is a dead Dinosaur too.

It is just taking time for some people to wake up to the reality of the difficult budgetary situation they are actually facing. Its called denial.

Problem is, their only safety net is rapidly going away in the form of Shuttle.

Ross.

« Last Edit: 11/20/2009 07:50 pm by kraisee »

Logged

"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"-Robert A. Heinlein

In the end, I had to vote, "Don't know." Common sense tells me the answer should be, "No," because there are so many better choices, many of which could fly by the end of 2016, at the very latest. Piling money on SpaceX, Orbital, and a combine that works toward Orion-Lite on Atlas V *and* Delta IV should result in at least one HSF to LEO system by 2014-2015. SD-HLV (NSC) and Jupiter-130 (if not -246) could also be ready to go by 2016 at the latest (2014 at the soonest, in a "piling money on" scenario). But I think money piling is unlikely. And I suspect the effect of US politics works powerfully in favor of PoR as-is. So I guess my answer-in-detail is, "50:50."

What he said.

Logged

What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here, too, in helping answer the question "SHOULD Ares-1 survive?"

This was a slide posted on NASAWatch that was reportedly NOT included in the Ares-1 presentation to the Augustine HSF Review. A few lines have been added to assist in reading values from the chart.

From the PRA calculations of NASA's contractor, the probability of losing a crew on Ares-1 is one in ~820. The calculated probability of losing a crew on an EELV based system is ~1/530.

ASSUMING that these were true, and further ASSUMING that NASA were to fly 4 Ares-1 missions a year for 25 years (a wild exaggeration that benefits the Ares-1) the odds of one or more LOC events is ~10.3% for Ares-1 and 17.2% for EELV. The difference is 6.8%. (There are more exact ways to do this calculation, but here the small number approximations should be adequate.)

In round numbers, it will probably cost $30B MORE to develop Ares-1 than it would to man-rate an EELV like the Delta-IV Heavy that has already flown, or perhaps the Atlas-V Heavy which has gone through CDR. That would mean that we would be spending more than $400 Billion per LOC event prevented. If the number of flights goes down to 50, the cost rises to $800 Billion per prevented LOC. This is clearly not cost effective.

Logged

What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here, too, in helping answer the question "SHOULD Ares-1 survive?"

This was a slide posted on NASAWatch that was reportedly NOT included in the Ares-1 presentation to the Augustine HSF Review. A few lines have been added to assist in reading values from the chart.

From the PRA calculations of NASA's contractor, the probability of losing a crew on Ares-1 is one in ~820. The calculated probability of losing a crew on an EELV based system is ~1/530.

ASSUMING that these were true, and further ASSUMING that NASA were to fly 4 Ares-1 missions a year for 25 years (a wild exaggeration that benefits the Ares-1) the odds of one or more LOC events is ~10.3% for Ares-1 and 17.2% for EELV. The difference is 6.8%. (There are more exact ways to do this calculation, but here the small number approximations should be adequate.)

In round numbers, it will probably cost $30B MORE to develop Ares-1 than it would to man-rate an EELV like the Delta-IV Heavy that has already flown, or perhaps the Atlas-V Heavy which has gone through CDR. That would mean that we would be spending more than $400 Billion per LOC event prevented. If the number of flights goes down to 50, the cost rises to $800 Billion per prevented LOC. This is clearly not cost effective.

Another wrinkle in all this was pointed out by Brett Alexander yesterday at the show trial...er congressional hearing...Those charts that show the safety of EELVs vs Ares-I are only looking at the case of launching Orion manned, not EELVs launching a commercial earth-to-LEO optimized capsule (like what the A-com was *actually* suggesting). Most of the commercial ETO capsules that have been discussed in CCDEV and other places are *much* smaller than Orion (since they don't have to have large amounts of delta-V for TEI burns, plane changes, etc, they don't have to operate for months autonomously, they don't have to be controlled out in Lunar Orbit, etc, etc). Stuff that can fly on single core, no-strap-on versions of Atlas V or Falcon 9. I wonder how an EELV launching a commercial-size capsule would've compared vs. Ares-I Orion for astronaut launch safety...

But your point about how much money we're trying to spend to avoid a theoretically extremely small difference in probabilities of losing people is also good. Spending $30B to decrease the probability of losing 4 people every 25 years by 6% really does seem to be a really crappy abuse of public funds.

I voted "I don't know"Because I don't know.And I was surprised more people didn't pick that one.

Yeah me too. On the one hand it seems ridiculous to me that the Ares I program can continue to be funded despite of its inherent illogicality. But then on the other hand I have to recognize that the foolishness of government can't be underestimated... At least in regards to the latter I am more certain! :-p

I posted this elsewhere but it applies here, too, in helping answer the question "SHOULD Ares-1 survive?"

This was a slide posted on NASAWatch that was reportedly NOT included in the Ares-1 presentation to the Augustine HSF Review. A few lines have been added to assist in reading values from the chart.

From the PRA calculations of NASA's contractor, the probability of losing a crew on Ares-1 is one in ~820. The calculated probability of losing a crew on an EELV based system is ~1/530.

ASSUMING that these were true, and further ASSUMING that NASA were to fly 4 Ares-1 missions a year for 25 years (a wild exaggeration that benefits the Ares-1) the odds of one or more LOC events is ~10.3% for Ares-1 and 17.2% for EELV. The difference is 6.8%. (There are more exact ways to do this calculation, but here the small number approximations should be adequate.)

In round numbers, it will probably cost $30B MORE to develop Ares-1 than it would to man-rate an EELV like the Delta-IV Heavy that has already flown, or perhaps the Atlas-V Heavy which has gone through CDR. That would mean that we would be spending more than $400 Billion per LOC event prevented. If the number of flights goes down to 50, the cost rises to $800 Billion per prevented LOC. This is clearly not cost effective.

...also, Shuttle pLOV ("Shuttle Ascent (QRAS)") is shown as almost 1:200, which is better than Ares I. The other image linked in that NASAWatch article shows a Shuttle enhanced with a LES, but bases it on the all-of-mission pLOV, not ascent-only:-

...I think the chart should have looked like this:-

IE with a 0.8 effective LES, Shuttle would be safer during ascent than Ares I + LAS.

Since both J-130 & NSCbI are basically simplified Shuttles, it seems to me that these might have even better pLOV ratings than Shuttle.

Up until now, everyone has been assuming ~0.9 figures for LAS effectiveness. If EELV is any measure of effectiveness from a more conventional rocket (lower T/W, and can be throttled off if Vehicle Monitoring detects a problem), then J-130 may gain further over Ares I. (It's hard to speculate much re NSCbI aborts, due to the side-mount config).

cheers, Martin

PS adding abort-effectiveness to Shuttles all-of-mission Loss figure implies that it's possible to abort at any point in the mission. Struggling to imagine what an abort during re-entry might look like!

{snip} Struggling to imagine what an abort during re-entry might look like!

A re-entry abort from say the Moon could fly to the ISS, stay in LEO or bounce off the atmosphere into an elliptical orbit. At the ground the abort could be a splashdown rather than landing on the designated runway.

First we need some real leadership who understand the importance of not giving up on manned space....

What does real leadership mean? Believing everything that NASA politicians say and blindly throwing more money at the problem? Or going back to the fly-off planned by Admiral Steidle and allowing demonstrated performance define the future?

First we need some real leadership who understand the importance of not giving up on manned space....

What does real leadership mean? Believing everything that NASA politicians say and blindly throwing more money at the problem? Or going back to the fly-off planned by Admiral Steidle and allowing demonstrated performance define the future?

I'm with Analyst too, very good questions.

That's a muti-thread discussion for sure.

Logged

Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

I voted that Ares I will survive, but not because I think it’s a good design, because I don’t. My reason is that when ever government has a choice between a sensible solution and a dumb solution, it’s a safe bet that they will choose the dumb one.

In this case they have a choice of several solutions among them Ares is the dumbest and most unsustainable; this means Ares is almost guaranteed to survive.